On May 2, 2013, at 8:36 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 1, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Vincent, >> >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 7:48 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Denis, >>> >>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Denis, >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 1:26 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a very bad feeling with proposal 3, since it split the >>> identifier, >>>>>> which makes its main part to loose its meaning when taken alone. So you >>>>>> cannot comunicate the whole information easily on different channels >>>>> (think >>>>>> about copy/pasting such reference ?). This is also really verbose, >>>>> sometime >>>>>> it looks odd, and I found it to be complex from a user view point. >>>>>> Moreover, it could not be easily applied in other situation than links, >>>>>> while ressource identification is not limited to links (think about a >>>>> macro >>>>>> arguments ?, see MotionComposer macro that imitate image: for an >>>>> example). >>>>>> I know it is hard, but I am currently -1 for this proposal. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we look at large, what we really need and intend to achieve is to >>> have >>>>>> an extensible syntax to identify ressources in XWiki. There is >>> obviously >>>>> a >>>>>> ready made standardized syntax for such purpose: URN. Proposal 1 is >>>>> really >>>>>> near that specification (but too verbose for URL), but I agree with >>>>> Thomas >>>>>> that users will complains to be forced to use doc: everywhere. This is >>>>>> precisely why I made proposal 2, which will fully avoid that constrains >>>>> for >>>>>> user of single wikis (a lot of our user since XE was our mostly >>>>> downloaded >>>>>> distribution until now). >>>>>> >>>>>> So my vote are (sorry Vincent, but your request to have a truly single >>>>> vote >>>>>> is far too restrictive for this matter) >>>>>> +1 to really conform with a URN syntax as much as possible (remove the >>>>>> useless verbosity for URL). >>>>>> Proposal 1: +0 >>>>>> Proposal 2: +1 >>>>>> Proposal 3: -1 >>>>> >>>>> I also prefer URIs but my problem with solution 2 is having to prefix >>> with >>>>> "doc:" for links to subwikis. This is pretty common. >>>> >>>> >>>> I do not see why this is so annoying, we type http:// to start URLs, >>> and I >>>> do not feel anyone has ever complains. >>> >>> Yes but we don't type URLs often at all… We navigate by clicking. Imagine >>> that every time you click on a link you had to instead type it, it would >>> become quickly an issue… >>> >> >> Are we talking about navigating the wiki ? no, we are talking about editing >> hyperlinked documents, and you need to type the http:// as soon as you >> refer a document outside of your current server. Isn't that comparable to >> linking document in another wiki ? > > I never ever type a URL! The only thing I do is copy paste URLs into > documents… > >>> In any case I think the main issue now is that 1) we have already offered >>> a simpler way for users to type references to docs and 2) other wikis also >>> propose this simpler way. Because of these 2 points, I'm not sure we can >>> ever go back to making it harder to type references to docs... >>> >> >> I do not believe 1) is a good argument. First, if users prefer simpler >> syntax for subwiki's links compare to an extensible URI base syntax, they >> may simply continue to use syntax 2.1. > > Bad argument because our goal is to move users to the latest syntax. The idea > is that the latest syntax is better so, no, we cannot say to users that they > should stay on the old syntax because it's nicer to type link refs… :) > >> Second, are there so much users with >> that preference, that also use multiple wikis with links between them ? > > I think so, especially since we're making XEM the default (first step was > virtual=1 by default, second step is to be able to create wikis by default). > >> Finally, we also provide other means to create documents then writing them >> using the xwiki syntax. We could also think about improving the editor to >> insert link/image more easily. > > IMO this fails the concept of the wiki syntax which is to be extra simple and > quick to use. So yes auto completion on linking/images is a good thing we > need in the future but if we could also have a simple syntax at least for doc > ref it would be good. > >> So is the limitation of solution 2, imposed by the need for flexibility, so >> blocker, as you seems to believe ? > > - Solution 1 is nice because it's simple and coherent. But harder to write > doc refs > - Solution 2 is slightly less nice because not coherent. Simple to write doc > refs but not cross wikis. > - Solution 3 is less nice because it drops the concept of URIs which could > prove useful in the future for other things in XWiki > - Solution 4: is less nice than 1 because less coherent but at the same level > of coherency as solution 2 and 3 and at the same time it doesn't have the > drawback of solution 2. It's very close to solution 3 but keeping the concept > of URIs. > >> Regarding point 2), I have not enough knowledge of other wikis, but it >> could be interesting to elaborate and see how and which of those other >> wikis really support easy interwiki links in there syntax, while providing >> at the same time support to different kind of ressources. I may be wrong, >> but I do not believe there will be numerous competitor with those criteria. > > They don't have this concept. But we need to be careful, we cannot allow to > be powerful and complex. We need to be powerful and simple. So making the > main use case hard just for supporting other use cases that are used 5% of > the time is not a good solution IMO. > >>>> So, solution 1 is not that bad, and >>>> solution 2 is only a feature over it, for those who use very basic >>> feature. >>>> It compare to the omnibox of chrome that try to be clever and works in >>> most >>>> situations, but some still require you to enter the http:// prefix. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I had proposed another solution in the other thread with a different >>>>> notation for proper URI notations. The idea was to use the shortcut >>>>> notation when you wanted to use document references for simplicity >>> reasons >>>>> and use the proper syntax when you use proper URIs. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe that solution wasn't that bad. I'm putting it again here (with a >>>>> difference using [[[…]]] instead of >>> as I had said since that doesn't >>>>> work for images): >>>>> >>>>> * Shortcut notation for doc refs: [[label>>docref]] >>>>> * General notations for URIs: [[[label>>type:reference]]] >>>>> * Shortcut notation for images: [[image:docref]] >>>>> * General notation for URIs in images: [[[image:type:reference]]] >>>>> >>>>> It looks clunky at first but it isn't really since it represents what we >>>>> want: >>>>> * shortcut notation for doc URIs >>>>> * full notation for any URI >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>> >>>> This again increase complexity (from a user POV) for very little benefit >>>> IMO. It look odd and again it cannot be applied anywhere, like in macros. >>>> So I see this fourth solution not much better than solution 3. >>> >>> You're not very logical here :) You said you wanted URIs and solution 4 is >>> about URIs while solution 3 isn't about URIs so you should prefer solution >>> 4 over solution 3 normally :) >>> >> >> Have I said the contrary ? 4 is better than 3, but not that much IMO since >> we still have the split issue. 4 solve the problem for your current needs, >> but does not lead to a general way of identifying ressources in XWiki. > > It does! It's like solution 1 actually. Again here it is (and again we could > think of another syntax if we want, we don't have to use [[[…]]], we could > use for example didn't finish my sentence… :) I meant to say that we could some other markup if we didn't want to have 3 [[[ and ]]]. Thanks -Vincent > [[[label>>type:reference]]] > > Now just because we want to make it easy to type doc ref we also allow a > **shortcut** (not the canonical way!): > > [[label>>docref]] > >> Having a consistant solution is also important, and a good way to simplify >> the user experience. > > Yes but only solution 1 provides this but at a big cost which I currently > consider too large. > > Of course since this is an important decision I'd like to know what others > think too. > >> If you're keen on URIs (as I am, thanks for reminding me that in your email >>> btw :)), then I believe solution 4 is currently the best one. >>> >> >> I do not agree, if you're keen on URIs (and I am) Solution 1 is the best >> one, considering it will only affect a new syntax. > > Thanks > -Vincent > >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> -Vincent >>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Typos below. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi devs, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Following this thread http://markmail.org/thread/vw3derowozijqalr it >>>>>>> seems clear that we need to introduce a better syntax for links and >>>>> images >>>>>>> in XWiki Syntax 2.2 (in order to cope with use cases such as >>>>>>> http://jira.xwiki.org/jira/browse/XRENDERING-290). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The need is to be able to plug new reference type handlers without >>>>>>> breaking backward compatibility in XWiki Syntax 2.2 (since right now >>>>> with >>>>>>> XWiki Syntax 2.0 and 2.1 adding a new type reference handler would >>> break >>>>>>> backward compatibility). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So here are various proposals to that effect for XWiki Syntax 2.2 >>> (I've >>>>>>> only kept the interesting proposals from the previous thread). Please >>>>> vote >>>>>>> for the one you prefer or add new solutions if you have other better >>>>> ideas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proposal 1 >>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Force XWiki Syntax 2.2 to *ALWAYS* use the full form when creating a >>>>>>> link or image, i.e. all links would need to be written: >>>>>>> [[label>>type:reference]] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Examples: >>>>>>>> * [[label>>doc:space.page]] >>>>>>>> * [[label>>doc:wiki:space.page]] >>>>>>>> * [[label>>path:/some/path]] >>>>>>>> * [[label>>url:http://xwiki.org]] >>>>>>>> * [[label>>user:evalica]] >>>>>>>> * [[image:doc:wiki:[email protected]]] >>>>>>>> * [[image:icon:someicon.png]] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CONS: >>>>>>>> * Harder to write links to documents which is the main use case >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proposal 2 >>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Same as with XWiki Syntax 2.1 but for links or images to subwikis >>> force >>>>>>> the user to use the "doc:" notation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Examples: >>>>>>>> * [[label>>space.page]] or [[label>>doc:space.page]] >>>>>>>> * [[label>>doc:wiki:space.page]] >>>>>>>> * [[label>>>path:/some/path]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should be [[label>>path:/some/path]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>>url:http://xwiki.org]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should be [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>url: >>> http://xwiki.org >>>>> ]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * [[label>>user:evalica]] >>>>>>>> * [[image:doc:wiki:[email protected]]] >>>>>>>> * [[image:icon:someicon.png]] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PRO: >>>>>>>> * Still easy to reference docs and images in the current wiki >>>>>>>> * Close to current XWiki Syntax 2.1 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CONS: >>>>>>>> * Harder to write links to documents in subwikis (for workspaces >>> users >>>>>>> for example, see example of xwiki.org) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Proposal 3 >>>>>>>> ========= >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Always define the type as a link or image parameter, i.e. separate >>>>>>> subwiki notation from type. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Examples: >>>>>>>> * [[label>>space.page]] or [[label>>space.page||type="doc"]] >>>>>>>> * [[label>>wiki:space.page]] or >>> [[label>>wiki:space.page||type="doc"]] >>>>>>>> * [[label>>>/some/path||type="path"]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should be [[label>>/some/path||type="path"]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>>http://xwiki.org >>>>>>> ||type="url"]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should be [[label>>http://xwiki.org]] or [[label>>http://xwiki.org >>>>>>> ||type="url"]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> -Vincent >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * [[label>>evalica||type="user"]] >>>>>>>> * [[image:wiki:[email protected]]] or >>>>>>> [[image:wiki:[email protected]||type="doc"]] >>>>>>>> * [[image:someicon.png||type="icon"]] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PRO: >>>>>>>> * Still easy to reference docs >>>>>>>> * Clear separation between subwiki and types >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CONS: >>>>>>>> * Harder to write typed links >>>>>>>> * Harder to write references in non xwiki/2.x syntax that would not >>>>>>> support link parameters >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> -Vincent _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
